What you're not understanding, or don't care about, is that you don't have to vote to have an influence on elections.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Raising Arizona ... Guns, Illegals ... what next???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
The point is that the only beef I need show you is a mere 1.6 oz McDonald's patty. I never said illegal alien vote fraud was widespread, just that it happens and has an influence on elections. Elections are won and lost by very very small margins all the time. It doesn't have to be wide spread. Is it OK that an election in CA was EVER decided by illegal votes? No, of course not. Should AZ not have turned away hundreds trying to vote illegally just because that number is a small percentage of voters? You may not care about a suburban mayoral race, but small legislative districts decided by small margins where there is a good possibility of illegal votes can ultimately influence major federal legislative initiatives. Several votes in Congress have come down to just a vote or two in the last 10 years. Under the current policy, law and climate, it is incredible hard to prove voter fraud. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Setting aside the binders and blinders the feds must deal with to make a legal vote fraud case and you can see notable evidence of illegal votes. You need not have to make a federal legal case to be convinced there is a problem and fix it. Since when is that the standard for government taking action?
I haven't heard you say that illegal immigrants do not vote. So that must mean that you simply do not care if the occasional illegal vote decided a very tight race. I have found that, generally, those on the left are more interested in individual suffrage. The more votes the better, hanging chads, legal immigrant, illegal aliens, and Mickey Mouse, it is all good. Those on the right tend to be more interested in the integrity of the process. A vote is sacred and powerful, not to be wielded by the unauthorized or tampered with by the villainous.
Money helps but most illegals aren't exactly swimming in it.
Something the facts don't really back up.
Probably because there is a tiny handful of them that do, along with Mickey Mouse and his dead friends. But to fixate on what is certainly a tiny, and likely insignificant, part of voters is to ignore bigger issues with the voting process. I think it is a bogeyman that is pulled out to scare some, and it seems to have worked in a few cases.
Well not that people care anymore or realize that their Forefathers wrote and notarized a document that protected their rights as citizens but I keep a book copy of the original laying around to reference and I've memorized the 4th Amendment as to remember when I am talking to Citizens not to infringe on their rights without being able to articulate why and be as courteous as possible using the Golden rule until something changes and makes it (courtesy) unnecessary in a specific situation. Articulation is the key, and to use your rights is to know them, it's not the responsiblity of the officer to inform you of every right ever written but a person that is unsure can certainly ask and the officer better answer correctly or else they are baseless in their prosecution of the crime when / if they take the stand in a case. But since people don't take government and law seriously and curriculums don't take it seriously to convey in current society people just seem to walk around aimless in terms of knowing what is their rights and also seemingly wondering what is right from wrong. I don't know what the absolute right answer is, but I got suggestions, the most common one is to be educated and know what your rights are in order to prevent them from being infringed upon and having your rights fade away with every piece of convoluted legislation that takes us further away from the original Bill of Rights. As simple men and women I don't think there was ever any document that was so precisely written in order to define the rights and privileges of human beings in a free society. I agree that it's not perfect, and obviously so, since it has been Amended 17 times since the original Bill of Rights. I think it's worth looking over if you are a citizen, even if you never make it to the Capital to see it for yourself and understanding what it truly means to be an American and understand that there is responsibility involved as well with being a citizen and not just wondering what the Government is going to give you or take from you next.
Are you applying an immigrant/ethnic stereotype? What, all illegal aliens cut lawns and live in tar paper shacks down by the river or in the orange grove? The average RNC individual donation is around $50. Last figure I saw for the DNC was something less then $200. According to the INS there are 11.6 million illegal aliens in the US. If one tenth of the number gave just $20 it amounts to a chunk of change no political would turn down. Moreover, they have the right to assemble and associate. Volunteer labor is just like money. They can work phones for campaigns, call into radio programs, walk the neighborhood, and not discipline their children when they ditch school to protest or march. All that is done in AZ. While it is legal and I would not prohibit it, it does in fact influence the electoral process. If they had been stopped at the border, or deported when caught, they could not assert that influence.
I for one am not fixated on it. I consider it one of many symptoms of the illegal immigration mess. Not recognizing it will just make it worse. If the numbers don't bother you now when will they? By time it makes a difference to you it will be too late. Why can't we just have verifiable citizenship requirements to vote like most every other country in the world? Not doing so amounts to looking the other way while a law is broken. Oh, and just what is the bigger problem with the voting process? I can think of some, but I am interested in what you think.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I don't know which scandal you are referring to in particular. This conversation occurred within the last two years, so it's fairly recent. I will ask him again when I see him.
Nevertheless, let's say that you are right and the NYPD decided to get rid of their 1 arrest per month quota. You are still acknowledging that "supervisors know how much law enforcement activity should be taking place," which means that officers are aware that they are going to be judged by how many arrests they make. Whether you want to call it a quota or something else makes no difference to me; there is still significant pressure for officers to make more arrests than the next guy.
I actually did misspeak about something in my previous post, though... most police deception tactics, while ethically questionable, are not illegal.
@hokie,
I agree that it is everyone's responsibility to know their own rights, but it's easier said than done to tell people to refuse searches and questioning. First, people generally trust the police, so when they say "just tell me where XXXX is and you'll get off easy," they tend to believe them. Secondly, the situation can be fairly scary, and police can add to this by adding idle threats. I was once threatened by an undercover cop that he was going to write me a summons for not changing lanes properly in a parking lot if I didn't tell him why I had an air freshener on my rear-view window (no, I did not have any drugs on me, nor did I smoke any in my car). His "probable cause" for drugs was that a young male pulled into an empty parking lot at night off of a busy main road to make a U-turn. There's also the "If you don't tell me XXXX, you'll be charged with obstruction of justice." Thirdly, there is the perception that refusing to comply with police implies guilt, so people will cooperate in an attempt to prove their innocence. This will usually work if the person is innocent, but there are plenty of cases where someone has been incarcerated for a crime they did not commit because they cooperated with an overzealous officer. Finally, many people who find themselves in these situations have never encountered the police in this manner.
So it's one thing to learn your rights. It's another thing to deal with an experienced police officer who's probably dealt with people who know their rights before.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I agree with you that we shouldn't have illegal aliens voting in elections. However, eliminating illegal immigration entirely and stopping voter fraud entirely are impossible goals. Additionally, Latinos are not the only group of illegal immigrants in this country. If the best you can find is a number that says 3% of votes came from illegal immigrants, I'm okay with that in lieu of the fact that getting it to 0% would be both unrealistic and extremely costly to our already broke federal government, particularly when all the money and effort is focused into stopping only one of many groups of illegal immigrants. The cost of doing this would be far more damaging to our society than allowing illegal immigrants to affect 3% of the vote.wink said:
Which leads me to my next question...aside from the fact that it is the law, and we all know that the law is always correct (just ask Rosa Parks, or some of the people on this forum who are so outspoken against gun control), that people incorrectly think that Latino immigrants are all gang-bangers looking to murder someone, and that some red-blooded "Amurcuns" get offended at the thought of someone speaking a language other than English while residing here, what would be so bad about loosening our immigration requirements to allow more people into the country?
The fallout has been occurring for some time. It seems clear it wasn't a NYPD policy, but mid level command officers and supervisors who, misusing the vaunted NYPD crime statistics program, took the easy way to supervising their subordinates. So I am probably still safe saying LE AGENCIES do not have arrest quota polices. This is why: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/30/2009-11-30_judge_rips_nypd_on_false_arrests.html
What respectable agency would think that arrest quotas are good, or even legitimate policy after a dozen cases like the one in the link.
You are a Naval Officer right? i mean I remember when you were a wannabe and I haven't followed your career. If you don't see how a supervisor's knowledge of data can be legitimately used to motivate, counsel and evaluate his officers then you must be a poor leader of sailors. Let me help, a real arrest quota takes no account for the present crime level, types of crimes, demographic changes, month of the year, time of day the officer works in, the officer's experience level, other collateral duties, size of his beat area, personal problems at home, and much more. A good supervisor (Naval Officer) will take that operational data and balance it against the operational realities for the time period in question and take into account each individual officers (sailors) skill set, training, experience, work environment and personal issues. I am sorry, either you are a fool or you just don't hink before you write these things.
Nothing, as long as they go through the legal process and are not a foolish as you. This is about ILLEGAL immigration.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Yes, I am aware of those things. I agree that a good supervisor will do the things you say; however, not every supervisor is good at his job. Moreover, even if a good supervisor lowers his standard of law enforcement activity that should take place based on the factors you listed above, there is still the pressure to make as many arrests as possible.
The article you linked above is one of many stories of NYPD being overzealous with enforcing drug laws. Part of that deals with the professionalism of the organization. Part of it comes from the inherent problems that come with offering below average wages compared to the national average for law enforcement in order to afford hiring a bazillion people, many of whom have questionable backgrounds. Finally, a big part of that lies with the ridiculousness of NYC's drug laws, particularly with marijuana. But like many things in civil service, this all comes from "command climate"...NYC has had two mayors in the past 10-15 years who have called for aggressive laws and enforcement against drugs, and who have appointed police commissioners with the same priorities. Hence, the pressure is on the police in NYC to make drug arrests, and lots of them, and this leads officers to employ questionable tactics to make those arrests...much like a Captain who never accepts legitimate excuses for maintenance being delayed might find himself with a crew performing lots of midnight maintenance.
So if AZ were to get a governor or mayor who had the same mindset toward enforcing immigration as Guiliani and Bloomberg has toward drugs, what do you think would happen? AZ isn't immune to mayors who want to "clean up" a city.
Yes, and I am asking...aside from it being illegal, what exactly is the real issue here? I mean, usually laws have a purpose, and that purpose is typically to protect individual rights...for example, I can't steal because it takes away someone's right to own personal property. So what purpose does banning a group of people from immigrating to the country and spending billions of dollars every year to poorly enforce it, and losing billions in tax revenue in the meantime, serve?
<sarcasm>
Why don't we just install RFID tags under the skin of every American at birth, and every naturalized citizen. Then, we have automated weapons systems set up at specified intervals across the border. If a human presence is detected, and no RFID signature, BOOM!. Then, to encourage tourism, we can have RFID bracelets that can be purchased at specific border crossings or ports of entry. Problem solved! The money from the tourists RFID tags pays for the RFID program. Done. This is easy. . .maybe I can solve world hunger and poverty next?
</sarcasm>
Why don't we just install RFID tags under the skin of every American at birth, and every naturalized citizen. Then, we have automated weapons systems set up at specified intervals across the border. If a human presence is detected, and no RFID signature, BOOM!. Then, to encourage tourism, we can have RFID bracelets that can be purchased at specific border crossings or ports of entry. Problem solved! The money from the tourists RFID tags pays for the RFID program. Done. This is easy. . .maybe I can solve world hunger and poverty next?
</sarcasm>
LE here does not set arrest quota. They certainly are not stupid enough to set immigration arrest quotas. But if the people feel their city is going down the tubes then their civil SERVANTS will probably put a priority on whatever is bothering their citizens. In NYC it was the drug activity and porn. But if you want to pose an unrealistic hypothetical, AZ immigration law as NYC drug enforcement, it just might end in scandal just as it has in NYC, and should. But if you want to make the comparison more clear, I'd have to say that illegal immigration in AZ would be curbed by some degree, just as the drug trade has in NYC.
You are choosing not to pay attention. Illegal immigration is a net cost to the tax payers of AZ. Some debate that, but I don't buy it. Neither does most Arizonans and our state government. So what is the personal infringement. Lets see, they destroy and pollute our public AND private border lands. While not all illegal immigrants are criminals it is clear that better immigration enforcement would keep out the criminals along with more peaceable illegal immigrants. Less criminals, less crime. Better enforcement means fewer auto accidents by uninsured illegal immigrants. Fewer illegal immigrants mean fewer children of illegals meaning smaller class sizes and fewer English as second language hassles in the classroom and expense in teaching to the ESL children. I am sure you can agree that just that short list of problems illegal immigration brings are ultimately an abridgment to the rights of the legal residents of AZ whether it is a physical or property right or simply a financial burden thrust upon me by people that are not legally entitled to residency in the state.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I don't think it's so unrealistic. It doesn't really matter, though, because it will only take one case of harassment of a citizen followed by a civil lawsuit for this law to go in the gutter.
Drugs curtailed in NYC? I really don't think so, and I certainly don't think it's worth the millions of tax dollars it takes to house someone in jail because they had a nickel bag of weed on them. More importantly, I don't think it's worth the climate it creates where police officers think it's okay to disregard search and seizure rights in an effort to put people in jail for having a nickel bag of weed.
I would agree that these are all real costs of illegal immigration, but I would also point out that the people shouldering the burden are the same people who enjoy dirt cheap construction work, fruit and vegetables, and lawn care thanks to a work force in these businesses largely populated by illegal immigrants. I would be very interested to see a study that analyzes all of these factors to see if the cost of sending illegal immigrants to public schools or treating them at hospitals exceeds the economic benefits of cheap manual labor. Presumably, most of these people wouldn't be paying income taxes if they were legal, anyway, since they'd be below the line for paying taxes. Illegal immigrants do, however, still pay property and sales taxes, the former of which is the primary funding source for school districts.